. >> thank you very much, mr. posey. the panel wishes to send the response in, we'll make sure members of the committee receive it. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i would like to ask unanimous consent to enter the written statement of the steve bartlet, president and ceo of the financial services round table into the record. >> without objection, so ordered. >> i would also like to acknowledge some of the testimony in response to some of my colleague's question that no one is advocating for a national insurance charter in any way is suggesting that we lower consumer protections. in fact we're starting at the baseline nic models and improving by adding a national insurance commissioners that would@@@@@ billion of federal tax dollars that had gone to shore up life insurance subsidiaries that took risky bets through the securities lending programs that notably were approved by the state commissioners? >> in a follow-up question to that, what resources have been put in place subsequently by you and our commissioners to oversee t

. >> mr. posey, i want to come back to your re insurance comment and i'll be glad to defer to your comment about credit fault swaps. i would like to make one point. the critical part of a regulator, and we think perhaps the fed is to analyze the instruments themselves. the difficulty with credit default swaps with aig was leverage and the huge number of transactions that they did and the leverage that was embedded in each one. it's critical and it would be interesting to see what mr. mcgrath would say about this and the amount of staff that it takes to analyze the financial instruments to regulate them and to see which things are permissible or not we think is more akin to what the fed does than what eric dinallo or one of the state regulators would be able to do with staff and being able to stay on top of that particular kind of financial instrument. >> does anyone think that the people that are putting these together are highly valued making tremendous sums of money. does anyone have the slightest

mr. posey: i rise to express my serious concerns about the bill before us today and about the lack of sufficient sufficient funding. the bill before us has $6.7 billion increase in spending over last year. that is a 12% over last year's spending. and while the overall nasa budget gets a slight increase, the funding for the next space flight vehicle is cut by $166 million. while lawmakers can talk about supporting space exploration, the bottom line is that the united states will yield its preeminent space to russia after the last flight scheduled for 2010. this legislation does nothing to avert the gap. those who follow our nation's space budget realize what's at risk. soaring rhetoric and good intentions of playing financial catchup can surrender to other competing initiatives. delays in studies are the road to the grave yard for many legislative proposals. the bill's $566 million cut for our human space flight vehicle sends the wrong message to the hard working men and women who are developing